In this Discussion

I think DiEugenio lets his politics color his analysis. Political correctness is not just something Bill Buckley conjured up in the sixties. Sure, the right dislikes the fact that the left dominates the university system in America. But that's because *the left dominates the university system in America*. Doesn't mean you have to be a conservative Republican to see this. Political correctness is a major force in the US, and tempests-in-a-teapot rage everyday on campuses because somebody used the wrong euphemism to describe a certain group, or because some female academic who dislikes a rival claims sexual harassment.

Of course, the real point should be that the left/right divide in America is an illusion. Nothing unites right and left more quickly than saying, for example, Kennedy was killed by conspiracy or Building 7 wasn't brought down by Osama bin Laden. In other words, both are in service to the State.

That's how I see it. Politeness and respect are together one thing, and should be a matter of course. But political correctness is used as a weapon at universities, which ought to be obvious. When somebody like McAdams attacks political correctness, he's using it as a codeword: his real target is the broad left-leaning ideology in the American academic world. But that doesn't mean political correctness isn't bad.

Huh? Nobody outlawed anything. McAdams violated the rules under which he was employed, which specifically denied him the right to harass the students and fellow instructors and, in the process, place their health and safety in danger. And keep in mind, Marquette is a highly conservative institution. If they had trouble with his behavior, he must have been way beyond the pale.

The term "political correctness" does not, and never has, referred to actions that place others in danger. Prosecuting someone for hollering "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is not an example of "political correctness." It's the enforcement of the rules of proper behavior.